Evidence of Student Learning 1

Evidence of Student Learning

Amanda Slaysman

Towson University
Evidence of Student Learning 2

Part A

Halstead Academy is a public school in Baltimore County located in Parkville, bordering

Baltimore City. Current enrollment at Halstead is presently at 521 students, above the capacity

of 516 students. School enrollment is often affected by a highly transient student population.

The demographics at Halstead are not diverse with 87 percent of the students being African

American. The other 13 percent is comprised of various other races including white, Hispanic,

Asian and Pacific Islander. Halstead educates students that come from low socio-economic

status households, with 89 percent of the student body receiving free and reduced meals.

Halstead follows an inclusion model that focuses on individualized instruction for each learner

based on their specific needs. Students are diagnosed with specific learning goals, and through

a focus of least restrictive environment, provide students with both small group instruction,

differentiation and universally designed lessons. The average class size at Halstead is 23

students which are heterogeneously grouped and mixed among each classroom.

The classroom model for the class that I used for my Evidence of Student Learning, is

my 2nd grade inclusion classroom. There are 24 students my classroom: 11 girls, 13 boys.

Within my class I have 7 students with I.E.Ps, as well as 2 students with 504 plans. Their

exceptionalities include: autism, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, ADHD, emotional

disorder, as well as a chromosomal disorder. All students with IEP goals within this classroom

are working to refine their executive functioning skills. In conjunction with this, within my

classroom we have cultural and linguistic differences. I have 3 students who are English

language learners. Two of those students are native to Nigeria and one student is native to

Puerto Rico. In terms of their oral and written language development, I have 3 students
Evidence of Student Learning 3

working toward goals on receptive language as well as expressive language. Written language is

developing within our classroom but is not a primary concern as all students are progressing

toward grade level expectations in writing.

For this project, I will be focusing on a small group of 4 students. All four of these

students have IEPs. On their IEPs, each student in this group has a goal of developing reading

comprehension as well as receptive language through visualizing and verbalizing. We will be

focusing on students: Tyler, Austin, Amari and Jose. These four students will develop their

reading comprehension through finding key details to support a main topic or idea. This IEP

goal directly aligns with the Maryland College and Career Readiness Standard (MCCRS). The

standard used was RI2 CCR Anchor Standard Determine central ideas or themes of a text and

analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. RI2: Identify the

main topic of a multi-paragraph text as well as the focus of specific paragraphs within the text.

The Essential Skills needed to accomplish this task, include but are not limited to: identifying

key details in each paragraph of a multi-paragraph text. Connecting key details to determine

the topic of a paragraph within a multi-paragraph text. Connect ideas to determine main topic

of a text, identify and decipher relevant vs. irrelevant details, decode a multi-paragraph text, as

well as demonstrating a command of the conventions of Standard English when writing or

speaking.

Students will demonstrate the knowledge they have gained by creating a zoo plaque

for an exhibit at the Baltimore Zoo. This will be through the use of a written paragraph including

4 sentences. A topic sentence stating a general statement about their animal, two supporting
Evidence of Student Learning 4

details (which will be relevant to their general statement along with linking words and/or

phrases), as well as a conclusion sentence connecting the ideas.

In order for Tyler, Amari, Austin and Jose to be successful in developing the essential

skills and knowledge to support this standard (RI.2) students will be walking through the

process step by step. Day 1, our objective will be, you will analyze a non-fiction text in order

to identify key details on a topic. The objective on day 2 will be, you will determine the

importance of key details in a text in order to determine the main idea. The objective on day 3

will be, you will write to inform an audience about an animal through the use of a main idea

and key details. Each daily objective aligns directly to each students IEP goals of breaking

down instructional level text to support comprehension. These objectives directly align to the

MCCRS of having second graders identify key details to support a main idea within a multi-

paragraph text.

Part B

Before I made my determination of my small group, I had to conduct a pre-assessment

to identify the students current knowledge, abilities and instructional implications for moving

them forward. For the pre-assessment, I read aloud a paragraph on polar bears. The students

then had to choose the best sentence to describe what the paragraph was about. Below is

the data chart that I recorded:

Evidence of Student Learning 5

Student Names Main Idea Detail 1 Detail 2

Tyler Polar bears are large It said it in the book. Polar bears eat seals.

mammals.

Amari Polar bears are large Copied the first three Polar bears hair isnt

mammals. Lines of the text. white it is clear.

Austin Polar bears are The story said it. Polar bears like cold

unique animals. weather.

Jose Polar bears are large Copied the first three Did not write another

mammals. lines of text. sentence.

After they chose from a list of three possible main ideas (two non-examples and one

correct answer) they then had to write why they chose that as their sentence using details from

the text to explain their answer. I gave students the option of writing, or underlining the details

from the text. For one student who struggles in writing, I cut out the details in the paragraph

and she could use those if she chose to. Three out of the four students chose the sentence,

Polar bears are large mammals which is a detail from the text as their main idea. The other

student who did not choose that sentence, chose the other non-example Polar bears are

unique animals. The paragraph was describing how polar bears were dangerous hunters.

When the students decided on why they chose their answer, two students wrote variations of

it said it in the book. The other two students started to rewrite the entire paragraph until

they were stopped. After this pre-assessment I had a very clear picture of the students
Evidence of Student Learning 6

understanding of main idea and supporting details, which allowed me to prepare appropriate

follow-up lessons.

During each lesson, I used the use of questioning and observation to serve as my

formative assessments. Each small group had 20 minutes of instructional time, so as we built

on our skills each day I wanted to utilize my time efficiently by using verbal assessments to

make instructional decisions and gauge student learning. Since we were working toward one

culminating task at the end, we built on our skills each day. I asked questions to assess learning

by asking students thinking questions, that required them to justify their thinking. why did you

choose that detail? or what makes you say that is the main topic or what is the author

writing this paragraph for?. Based on the students responses I was able to change some

misconceptions, as well as break down the new learning into smaller steps if need be. This type

of formative assessment was extremely beneficial, as I was able to hear why the students

chose their supporting details or main ideas. Often, I found that the students just chose

something as a guess and did not have a solid strategy to formulate a main idea from their

three supporting details. I could break down the learning, for example, by saying reread your

three details, what are these three puzzle pieces trying to tell us about a polar bear? as well as

giving students a word bank of adjectives to choose from that would fit their animal. At the

end of their three days of instruction each student had pieced together, an organizer which

mapped out their thoughts on three important details and a general statement about a polar

bear. On the third day of instruction, my small group was longer, giving students time to

translate their organizer into their paragraph which would go on their zoo plaque for the

Baltimore Zoo. The paragraph on their Zoo plaque served as my summative assessment. Seeing
Evidence of Student Learning 7

their paragraph on polar bears made the most sense in order to evaluate student

understanding. In addition, this type of summative assessment aligned with the MCCRS

standard and essential skills we focused on for this small group. The small group was built

around the standard RI2: Identify the main topic of a multi-paragraph text as well as the focus

of specific paragraphs within the text. After the students finished writing their paragraph, I

asked the students to look at their pre-assessment. Two of the students laughed at what they

wrote and saw how much they learned about what a main idea and supporting details are. It

was so powerful to see their pride as they saw right in front of them, how much they had

learned! The essential skills as stated by the MCCSS for the standard that I used, were:

identifying key details in each paragraph of a multi-paragraph text. Connecting key details to

determine the topic of a paragraph within a multi-paragraph text. Connect ideas to determine

main topic of a text, and identify and decipher relevant vs. irrelevant details. The students all

demonstrated growth in being able to show understanding of how to do each of these essential

skills. I did not see any growth in terms of the essential skills of writing development or

decoding a multi-paragraph text. Since these were underlying skills, and not directly in the

objective, I still felt the students demonstrated comprehension of the skill focus.

All of my assessments (pre, formative and summative) aligned with each other, in

conjunction with the unit goals and objectives. A pre-assessment of guided/ independent

practice, formative assessments which include observation and questioning and a summative

assessment of a written independent practice align with each other by demonstrating students

knowledge on the topic at each stage of their learning. In the initial stage, the students were

asked to determine a starting point, using minimal instructional time. The pre-assessment gave
Evidence of Student Learning 8

conclusive insight about where to begin instruction. My objectives fostered learning built on

the previous lesson. Because each day, my objectives differed my questioning and observations

shifted slightly. Day 1, our objective was, you will analyze a non-fiction text in order to identify

key details on a topic. So my formative assessment questions were geared toward asking

students to find the key details, for instance, what did the author want you to learn? or what

is important to keep in our brains about polar bears? Why? Seeing what the students decided

was important lead me to more guiding and simple questions to break down and scaffold the

learning. As we moved into our day 2 objective which was, you will determine the importance

of key details in a text in order to determine the main idea I was asking students to really

analyze what was important and find connections between the ideas to identify a main idea.

The students then had to tease out their details to really hone their facts to related ideas that

would support their thinking. Through questioning, I was able to glean insight into how my

students were processing both the details and the connection to a generalized statement.

On day 3 our objective stated, you will write to inform an audience about an animal through

the use of a main idea and key details. Students were given the opportunity to start to write

their paragraph, and through questioning I was able to extend two students to add some

transitional phrases to their writing to connect ideas. This days formative assessment

observations focused on their ability to retain and connect their details through a piece of

extended writing that would carry on as their summative assessment. Below is Tylers

summative paragraph:

Polar bears are good hunters. First, polar bears have big paws that are big like

a dinner plate. They have sharp claws that can shred their prey. Second, polar
Evidence of Student Learning 9

bears have teeth that are long and sharp that are used to tear up the seals they

eat. Finally, Polar bears are dangerous.

The Universal Design for Learning was embedded into each lesson and assessment

throughout the entire unit. Students were able to use their one-to-one technology to choose

where they gained information in the beginning of the lessons. They were able to have the text

read to them, through technology and there were also paper text on their independent reading

level that they could work to decode if they chose to use that method. I provided students the

opportunity to use online software as well as recording software to record their important

details. Their ending product was also student choice. They were able to publish their zoo

plaque through Wixie (online application), through written paragraph form on a poster or

recorded through a news cast on their device. All four of my students chose to write their

paragraph because they wanted it to be hung up on our student work wall. The students were

given a rubric to which they used as an outline for their summative assessment, regardless of

the form of the assessment they chose. Additionally, the MCCSS standard, essential skills, and

objectives were modified and accommodated to meet the needs of all four of my students.

To collect data, I kept an observation log with each of the four students names on it.

Below is the chart I used for the observation log.

 Evidence of Student Learning
10

Student Names Pre-assessment Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Summative

Assessment

Tyler I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (score 8/10)

Amari I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (Score 6/10)

Austin I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (score 8/10)

Jose I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (score 7/10)

The pre-assessment data was one column, objective 1 was the second, objective 2 was the

third, objective 3 was the fourth, and their summative was the fifth. Within each column I

wrote down specific student behaviors and anecdotal notes. Then I circled: I (independently

performed the task), H (required help to perform the task), U (unable to perform the task).

This note sheet served as a quick way for me to plan my questioning, what scaffolding I needed

to carry over the learning for the next day, and the students reading behaviors. I used the

rubric for the summative assessment as their input for the last column. For a scoring tool to

assess learning I created a bar graph showing the students progress for each day of instruction.

I then showed the students their graphs, which was a visual way for them to see their

learning. All students in my group made progress on this skill! Below is the graph for Tylers

progress.
 Evidence of Student Learning
11

Part C

To be sure that students understood the expectations for each lesson, objectives were

read together as a group and unpacked. They then are hung up at our small group easel so that

we could refer back to them after each lesson. These objectives were written and discussed in

age appropriate language. Each day the small group began with an engagement, where they

were brought to the small group table, and students were given the task of quickly giving a

grade to someone elses work. I created simple rubrics and a grading scale. Students then

gave the example a grade, and we discussed why they gave that grade. Then we went into our

objective for the day. We reviewed the vocabulary, main idea and supporting details each day

referring to the anchor chart. In order to understand their expectations for achievement

aligned with the MCCRS standard, essential skills and knowledge, their IEP goals, and

objectives, students were given graphic organizers to complete each objective for the day. As

mentioned previously, the objectives were modified to meet the individual IEP goals of each

student, while still following the RI2 CCR Anchor Standard: Determine central ideas or themes

of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. RI2:
 Evidence of Student Learning
12

Identify the main topic of a multi-paragraph text as well as the focus of specific paragraphs

within the text.

Pre-assessment data was analyzed to determine where to begin instruction for each

student. Using the data collected I was able to identify where students needs were.

Student Names Main Idea Detail 1 Detail 2

Tyler Polar bears are large It said it in the book. Polar bears eat seals.

mammals.

Amari Polar bears are large Copied the first three Polar bears hair isnt

mammals. Lines of the text. white it is clear.

Austin Polar bears are The story said it. Polar bears like cold

unique animals. weather.

Jose Polar bears are large Copied the first three Did not write another

mammals. lines of text. sentence.

Tyler, Amari and Jose chose a main idea that was just a sentence within the text. This showed

me they were unclear about what a main ideas purpose was, as well as identifying what a main

idea really means. Austin chose an example of a main idea, but it was not a main idea that

pertained to the text that he was reading. For small group, Tyler, Amari, and Jose focused for

the three days on identifying what a main idea is, and Austins focus was on identifying an

appropriate main idea given what the text is telling him. Without the pre-assessment data, I

would not have been able to diagnose exactly where each student was unclear. All the students

needed support with identifying what supporting details are, and which ones to choose to
 Evidence of Student Learning
13

match their main idea. To assess if the objectives were appropriate for each day, I reviewed

the previous days data. This allowed me to gain a clear understanding of what I needed to

review, along with what the students retained and could do independently. To motivate and

engage students I had sentence strips, as well as the engagement on the computer for students

to choose which form they would like to work with. I allowed students to work in partners to

motivate them to engage in instruction as well. The use of positive praise was used throughout

all of the lessons to ensure students are building confidence. I had student readers, as well as

opportunities to present information.

To introduce new content for each days group, I reviewed the relevant vocabulary, and

described the importance of knowing how to generalize a non-fiction text through main idea

and details. I related it to their lives each day, explaining why non-fiction authors write, how we

research online to answer questions and how this skill is used each day as an adult. I restated

the objectives in student friendly language and students were able to physically manipulate or

throw away the non-examples. I proceeded by modeling the first days task of the objective.

Day 1, our objective was, You will analyze a non-fiction text in order to identify key details on

a topic. I modeled this with a text on Tigers and how they are powerful animals. I had a poster

size of the tiger text and the students had the text in front of them. We read through each

paragraph together. I modeled with the first paragraph what was important information. The

students then were guided through the second paragraph through questioning. The third

paragraph they were able to work with a partner to highlight important details. At each step I

provided the students with explicit feedback so the students knew why each choice they made

was an important detail or where their gap in understanding was when they chose a detail that
 Evidence of Student Learning
14

we did not need to keep. The fourth paragraph students were able to highlight their important

details independently. I encouraged critical and creative thinking by asking students open-

ended questions. This was the most efficient method to meet each learner and provide student

centered experiences without them feeling discouraged. Their explanations of each detail they

chose gave me continuous feedback about how they were comprehending the text, and what

they were grasping of the skill. The objective on day 2 was be, You will determine the

importance of key details in a text in order to determine the main idea and the objective on

day 3 was, you will write to inform an audience about an animal through the use of a main

idea and key details. The same format of modeling, guided practice, partner collaboration

and independent practice was used for each days lesson.

At the end of each lesson, I reviewed the data from the formative assessments to

check for student understanding. I analyzed both the answers to the questions that I asked

them the previous day (which I wrote anecdotal notes to keep track of), as well as the students

independent practice from the previous day. I reviewed and reminded the students of what

we learned the previous day as well as the strategies we used to remember what is important

and what is not as important to keep. Each student moved toward progress in understanding

but still required help to complete the task successfully.

All of the students have an IEP and displayed varying levels of difficulty when learning

the concept. For this reason, I differentiated instruction to meet the individual needs of each

student. For Jose and Austin who struggle with writing, I gave them cut and paste opportunities

in order to eliminate them shutting down, and showing a true picture of how they were
 Evidence of Student Learning
15

meeting the objective. Tyler and Amari struggle with receptive language processing. I gave

them picture clues every opportunity that I could so that they were able to process information

being told to them, or through reading. My model was explicit and I used several think alouds

which allowed students an internal dialogue example. I scaffolded instruction by first reviewing

vocabulary, and modeling how to complete the skill. Slowly giving the student more

independence with feedback and collaboration students were gradually released to be

independent. All the feedback was positive and evidence based. It was clear and the students

knew what they did well, and what they needed to adjust. I constantly observed students eye

contact, facial expressions, and process of learning so that I knew how the students were

understanding or receiving the instruction and when they needed a break.

By the end of the three days, most students were able to complete the objectives

according to their learning goals, the MCCRS standard, and the essential skills and knowledge of

the standard. Even though some students did not make it do the independent level, I saw

evidence of learning in each child. The important points of the unit include the methods that I

used to engage and instruct each student, the gradual release of independence, the specific

and learner centered feedback, the higher level questioning as well as the assessment at the

end of each lesson. Each assessment was appropriate such as questioning, independent work,

observation, and collaborating with a partner which lead to a successful day of learning.

Part D

The following chart displays the students ability to write a paragraph with a main idea

and supporting details when pre-assessed.

 Evidence of Student Learning
16

Tyler No No No

Amari No No No

Austin Yes No No

Jose No No No

As displayed on the table above, only one student was able to identify and write a main idea.

The main idea was, however, not a main idea that pertained to the reading rather just an

example of a main idea. Zero out of four students were able to correctly identify and write a

supporting detail. These students displayed no understanding of the skills being assessed which

gave me a clear picture of where I needed to begin instruction.

The following chart displays the students formative assessment data from both day

one, day two and day three.

Student Names Pre-assessment Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Summative

Assessment

Tyler I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (score 8/10)

Amari I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (Score 6/10)

Austin I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (score 8/10)
 Evidence of Student Learning
17

Jose I H I H I H Rubric was a

separate page
U U U (score 7/10)
 Evidence of Student Learning
18

Each student was given an exit ticket at the end of each lesson. These were multiple choice

questions read to the students. The above charts outline the students progress on their exit

tickets at the end of each lesson. If the student was able to circle the correct answer the first
 Evidence of Student Learning
19

time the problem was read, they received an I which stood for independent. If the students

asked a clarifying question, asked for help or did not answer the question correctly the first

time the student received an H which stood for help. If the student did not attempt to circle

an answer or they said they didnt know, they received a U which stood for unable to

answer. The goal was by the end of each lesson for students to be as independent as possible.

Most students required help or prompting questions for the duration of the lessons to answer

the problems correctly. While the exit tickets depicted a limited level of independence during

this task, the students showed significant improvement of their writing of the paragraph

throughout the instruction! Their final paragraphs all received a 60% or higher on the rubric

provided. The last column of the chart shows the students score from the rubric on their final

summative assessment. Austin and Tyler received 8 out of 10 points on their summative

assessment. Amari received a 6 out of 10, and Jose received a 7 out of 10. The rubric is shown

below.

Skill Points Points

Possible Earned

Topic sentence which includes a 2

main idea

Supporting detail 2

Supporting detail 2
 Evidence of Student Learning
20

Conclusion Sentence restating the 2

main idea

Punctuation and capitalization 2

The chart below shows each students percentage change/growth from the pre-

assessment given prior to the unit to the summative assessment given on day 4. According to

the data, all students obtained a dramatically higher score on their summative assessment than

on the pre-assessment. To calculate the percentage of student growth from pre to post

assessments, I used the summative scoring rubric for each paragraph written, then subtracted

the percentage that each student earned on their pre-assessment.

Student Pre-Assessment % Summative % Growth %

Amari 0% 60% 60%
Tyler 20% 80% 60%
Austin 0% 80% 80%
Jose 0% 70% 70%

As indicated by the chart, four out of four students gained 60% growth or higher from

pre to post assessment. Throughout the days of instruction, I noticed that students fell down

more on the writing and the conventions than on the comprehension skill itself. Austin, Amari

and Tyler all struggle with writing, and were able to tell me verbally a great deal more than

what they put down on their papers. I noticed that Tyler and Austin only lost two points on

their summative assessment for correct punctuation and capitalization. Amari struggled to

restate the main idea in his conclusion sentence, and instead gave another supporting detail.
 Evidence of Student Learning
21

He also lost points for conventions in writing. Jose lost both points for writing conventions and

lost one point for his conclusion sentence. However, the skills taught: identifying and writing a

main idea with two supporting details, all students received all of the points on their summative

assessment.

To disaggregate the data based on the contextual factors of the school, the students in

the small group were African-American, Latino, or, Caucasian. All four students have IEPs that

were analyzed in this small group. Amari and Jose each have receptive language goals on their

IEPs which were addressed through picture clues during instruction. The students were given

the use of an anchor chart with both words and visual cues on it as well to help them to process

the verbal instruction. Amari and Jose also have extended time, frequent breaks as well as

chunking of assignments as accommodations. Because of this, Amari and Jose were each given

a timer, as well as cut up portions of their organizer to complete in order to be successful.

Although these students increased their summative assessment score significantly from the

pre-assessment, I do believe I could have used the UDL principals to incorporate more

movement, as well as visual cues to help these students with their receptive needs. Austin as

well as Tyler each have accommodations for a scribe, however both students asked to write

their paragraph themselves during the summative assessment. Since this was not a testing

event, I encouraged them to write and ask for help when needed. Three students have a

specific learning disability and one student has autism. One student also has cerebral palsy

accompanied with her learning disability. The African-American students both made significant

progress. The Caucasian student made significant progress as well. The Latino student made the
 Evidence of Student Learning
22

least amount of progress, but significantly improved his skill set. All students met standard

expectations for this unit.

When analyzing the patterns of achievement, I can conclude that the students who had

the greatest percent in increase in their learning (Tyler and Austin) are the ones who do not

have receptive language goals on their IEP, as well as behavioral goals. Although these students

have significant needs in the area of reading comprehension, and currently perform below

grade level, these students were able to remain focused, put forth their best effort and

understand the lesson being taught. They were able to meet the MCCSS standards and essential

skills and knowledge for the unit. These students were able to apply the comprehension

strategy to their instructional level text and do so successfully. When analyzing the patterns

for lack of achievement, I noticed the two students who struggled to make the most progress,

had both attention goals as well as receptive language goals on their IEPs. While Jose and

Amari were able to make significant progress in meeting the MCCSS standard, I feel their

constant need for redirection coupled with their struggle to comprehend receptive language

created a barrier for learning. During their instructional time, I noticed most activities with

picture clues and computer interactive materials were most helpful and engaging for these

students. I built in several breaks as well which helped them process bits of information given

to them rather than all of the instruction at one time.

For future instruction, to aid students in demonstrating the necessary growth to meet

the MCCSS standards, I would implement different instructional techniques, and technology

as well as varying forms of assessment. In terms of my instructional technique, I realized so

 Evidence of Student Learning
23

much of my instruction relied on students receiving verbal cues and learning. I realized that two

of the four students I had in my group struggled to learn that way, so I will make future

adjustments. First, I will help students to visualize and verbalize what they are reading through

drawing and movement throughout each part of the reading. This way, they are owning the

learning rather than hearing and receiving instruction. While I had an anchor chart up which I

developed with the students, I would like to have had a day where they learned the skill and

then developed their own anchor charts collaboratively, so that the learning was meaningful for

them. Another adjustment I plan to make is limiting the writing when assessing the skills and

standards discussed. While writing and conventions are an important piece to reading and

understanding, I think chunking these skills and teaching them in isolation for the more

challenging reading comprehension strategies is best for my learners. I would plan to make,

sorts and give students more choices which are already written, and give them an opportunity

to draw a picture with a caption rather than an extended writing piece for the purpose of

assessing this particular skill. As far as addressing the focus, for the students with attention

goals, I feel that if I had given the students more freedom and student choice they would have

been more invested in their project. So for their summative assessment, I would have the

students choose which animal they are analyzing as well as use Windows media player to make

a movie rather than writing their answers. These changes would align with the UDL principals

and enrich the students learning further.

 Evidence of Student Learning
24

Part E

Upon reflection on all aspects of my unit plan for small group instruction in reading,

I feel that, overall, the unit was successful. The data compiled from the pre-assessment,

formative assessments, and summative assessments have shown that four out of four students

were able to meet the MCCSS standard and essential skills and knowledge. Although there were

time restraints, the data represented effective instructional strategies.

During lesson one, students were provided with explicit instruction and modeling of the

new concepts being taught. They were not expected to already have the knowledge base to

identify the main idea of a non-fiction text with supporting details. This instruction was

effective because students were able to practice the skill with a clear model, guided support and

multiple means to access the learning. Although their day one performances on the formative

assessments did not demonstrate their abilities to independently complete the given task, they

were engaged and on-task. During lesson two, students continued to be provided with explicit

instruction, guided practice, and modeling, yet they were beginning to become more

independent. The learning was much more scaffolded to meet their individual needs as learners.

Their performances on the day two formative assessments proved the instruction to be

effective in that they all used more independence when completing the exit ticket. They did not

have the opportunity to rely so heavily on my guidance which gave them the opportunity to

become more self-sufficient. When challenged and questioned appropriately, students amazed

me with their verbal candor. With proper scaffolding, students gain the opportunity to be

instructed in a manner that fits their individualized needs. During day three, students were able to

begin to write their own paragraph to practice and demonstrate their understanding of the

essential skills and knowledge with minimal instructional support, and were then asked to write
 Evidence of Student Learning
25

their paragraph on their own. This instructional strategy was effective because students were

given the chance to incorporate the skills that they had practiced during the previous three days

and apply them to one culminating event. The data from these summative assessments shows

that all students adequately learned the concepts that were taught, and were able to apply the

necessary skills and knowledge. With continued and varied instruction, I know that all of the

students will be able to complete this skill with 100% accuracy in the future, with text on their

independent level.

The instruction of this unit influenced student learning to the greatest extent. Each

student has an IEP with specific reading goals, so instruction was modified to meet the needs of

the small, homogeneous group. All aspects of instruction were differentiated with the students

needs in mind. Jose and Amari were able to use the accommodations of verbal and picture

clues, recording device and a rubric to meet the needs of their receptive language goal. Tyler

and Austin developed both their listening and reading comprehension as well as their writing

skills using scaffolding, graphic organizers, and a rubric. These aids were beneficial for these

students because they require more explicit, step by step instruction. Because my small group

was only four students a large amount of one on one instruction was given to each student to

insure individualized learning goals were met. Although the students did not meet the

summative goal at 100% as stated above all four of the students missed points on another

essential writing skill that weaved into this standard. By modeling and scaffolding instruction for

all four students, I was able to meet them where their exact needs were. This allowed me to tailor

explanations as needed. Students benefitted by verbally or electronically repeating the specific

information, details or diretions. During day two, I provided less assistance by asking questions

such as, would this support your main idea; this type of questioning allowed students to think
 Evidence of Student Learning
26

actively about what they were learning and what they needed to do to translate their

understanding into writing. Furthermore, by providing students with a two minute sensory break

at the end of each lesson, they were able to regain their focus for the next task after my small

group.

Based on the implications acquired from the student achievement data, future

instructional activities would be modified to better fit the needs of the students. In the

future, I would like to provide reading instruction separate from writing instruction for this

specific skill. During this unit, students had to not only develop their reading and listening

comprehension but also attend to instruction long enough to then improve their writing.

Something I notice with second graders in general is their need for more support with balanced

literacy. We rely so heavily on writing to demonstrate understanding, but some of the students in

this group lack the ability at the present time to then write with appropriate spacing, letter

formation, complete sentences and still show understanding of the reading objective. Another

aspect that I would change would be to provide students with more instructional time in order to

have more practice. While I did my best to have one on one conferences with students about their

summative assessments, I think it would have been beneficial and much more powerful for the

students to each have one small group time 20 minute session dedicated just with them one on

one to meet their own specific needs. Students with disabilities already have enough

distractions and emotional needs that can interfere and hinder their learning, so having only a

total of 20 minutes with other students sharing that equally is not enough time to learn new

concepts, and demonstrate understanding. To allow for this, I would like to implement every

Friday to only small group rotation or conferencing rather than whole group instruction when it

fits into our instruction.

 Evidence of Student Learning
27

When creating a unit for any type of classroom, especially special education, it is

imperative to collaborate with other professionals who work with the same students and/or

population. Both before and throughout this unit, I constantly collaborated with the special

educator to gain perspective on what works and does not work for the individual students.

Through our observations, we were able to adjust the rotations so that Tyler and Austin were not

held back to wait for Amari and Jose; As well as different sensory inputs and attention breaks for

all four students. Another professional with whom I collaborated to gain perspective was my

teammate (one of the other second grade teachers). This teacher works with students who have

IEPs and are included in general education in her classroom and was able to give me some ideas

that I had not thought of after my ideas ran out! Her perspective was helpful because she showed

me what the expectation was for this skill leaving first grade (since she had previously taught

first grade) I was able to use this knowledge to implement instruction to meet my students were

they were. I wanted to be sure that I followed the grade two curriculum and MCCSS standards

while providing the necessary modifications and adaptations that my students required. Constant

collaboration and reflection is imperative for effective instruction and student learning to

transpire.

Two personal professional learning goals based on CEC standards surfaced as I

reflected on my instruction and the experiences that I gained from this unit. CEC standard 4-

assessment is an aspect of this unit that I want to focus on further. I do not think my assessment

was a clear picture of just assessing their ability to meet the reading learning targets. In fact, I

believe that it hindered a few students due to the overwhelming nature of the task to understand,

read, write, and revise their work. In the future, I would like to be sure my assessment is only

focused on the skill being taught, so that I have a clear understanding of their abilities. CEC
 Evidence of Student Learning
28

standard 1- Learner Differences is another aspect of this unit that could use improvements in the

future. I noticed that the students all had such individualized needs that at times I was

accommodating for one childs learning differences for the entire group, that may not have

needed that accommodation.